HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2012-13 to 2015-16 - 15– 42. On merits, considering that the assessee could not properly present its case before the lower authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer

BHAGYALAXMI STEEL ROLLING MILL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay and admitting the appeal of the assessee for adjudication. 10. Having said so, we shall now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised before us which read as under: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on acts of the case, in sustaining addition of alleged cessation of liability of Rs.5

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

Section 147 of the 1961 Act. 3. Aggrieved , the assessee filed first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee in statement of facts as well as grounds of appeal filed before ld. CIT(A) , stated as under:- “A. Statement of Facts 1.The Appellant is Individual and shifted to Mumbai after the death of her husband. 2. The assessee

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condonation of delay in filling appeal. 4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 44. The brief facts of the case are that search action was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 21.09.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(3)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 69A of the Act. 4. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) observed that there was a delay of 44 days in filing of appeal before him. The assessee filed application for condonation

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 162/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17)

condone delay petitions. Since the Division Bench of this Court has already considered the very same issue, that has been raised in this writ petition, the benefit granted to those petitioners must also enure to the benefit of this writ petitioner also. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.11.2019 is hereby quashed on the ground that the same is barred

M/S. NEESA TECHNOLOGIES LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as not entertained

44 days in filing appeal were without any supporting evidence when the Id. CIT(A) passed the order without affording an opportunity to the appellant to file the same. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in issuing notice(s) through email, when the appellant had specifically mentioned

JAYESHKUMAR HARJANI,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

44,000/- under Section 69C towards household expenditure\nallegedly incurred from unexplained sources.\n3.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before\nthe Ld. CIT(A) on 13.02.2020, i.e., with a delay of 17 days from the prescribed\ntime limit under Section 249(2)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), without\nadjudicating the appeal

M/S. KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri. T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

44 days and therefore requested to condone the delay. The ld. CIT-DR has no serious objection in condoning the delay, thus, the delay in filing the above appeal is hereby condoned considering Covid-19 Pandamic period and the appeal is taken up for hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its Return